278 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

brushyourteeth wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...
With people like Lambert (if he is still alive), Fiona, and Adrian running the show i sadly agree.

Maker, I want the chance to kill Adrian so bad!

If the mage/templar situation is going to be the focus of the next thing, I hope it really is the focus throughout the entire game. No interrupts and antagonist-changers like in DAII (unless we've been double-crossed). The more I read this thread (I've been lurking), the more excited I am by the fun all this chaos can inspire.

Kinda hope we aren't able to just "fix" everything at the end though. That seems... rather unrealistic.

I agree with the bolded. No resolution to the conflict should be sugar coated, rail roaded or ham fisted like DA2's ending was. I wonder if Rhys would be a companion in DA3?

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why kill Adrian? She's awesome, and the worst thing she did was kill someone who was begging for death. And Fiona's an excellent leader. Even Lambert fits his role well, for an organization so evil.

Well, as we all know, when it comes to Bioware games you often kill people for reasons other than disliking them. I've killed most of my companions at least once, just to see how things turned out. Though I usually felt pretty bad about it afterwards...

But really, I agree with all of Adrian's motives but not the way she goes about them. It's pointed out in Asunder that she's kind of a brat, and that she doesn't actually know anything about the world outside the Circle that she wants to experience so badly. And she's a results-at-any-cost kind of girl, which I think is the problem with the Chantry, and for the mages to be the good guys (and not just the underdogs, which isn't enough for me) they need to make this transition with some kind of standard for what's ok and what isn't. You can defeat your opponent without becoming everything you hate about them. I wish her health, happiness, and freedom, but not leadership. Definitely not leadership. *shudders*

[brushyourteeth]

The Hierophant wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...
With people like Lambert (if he is still alive), Fiona, and Adrian running the show i sadly agree.

Maker, I want the chance to kill Adrian so bad!

If the mage/templar situation is going to be the focus of the next thing, I hope it really is the focus throughout the entire game. No interrupts and antagonist-changers like in DAII (unless we've been double-crossed). The more I read this thread (I've been lurking), the more excited I am by the fun all this chaos can inspire.

Kinda hope we aren't able to just "fix" everything at the end though. That seems... rather unrealistic.

I agree with the bolded. No resolution to the conflict should be sugar coated, rail roaded or ham fisted like DA2's ending was. I wonder if Rhys would be a companion in DA3?

'Course, having the Veil rip open actually makes sense to me if there's to be any antagonist-changers. Forcing both sides to work together out of necessicity. Reminding both sides who the enemy really is. Forging unlikely friendships with your adversary. I could get on board with that.

I expect Rhys to be an entity somehow. Or at least Fiona - if not as an NPC, then at least as someone we hear about (like the Divine always has been).

[The Hierophant]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why kill Adrian? She's awesome, and the worst thing she did was kill someone who was begging for death. And Fiona's an excellent leader. Even Lambert fits his role well, for an organization so evil.

Nope there's nothing awesome about Adrian.  So far all of the mentioned are extremists, would do anything to attain their goals, regardless if innocents are caught in the cross fire. 
I hope bolded is an exaggeration because i'm tired of the shallow Saturday morning antagonists we were bombared with in DA2.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 10 août 2012 - 05:10 .

[Xilizhra]

The Hierophant wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Why kill Adrian? She's awesome, and the worst thing she did was kill someone who was begging for death. And Fiona's an excellent leader. Even Lambert fits his role well, for an organization so evil.

Nope there's nothing awesome about Adrian.  So far all of the mentioned are extremists, would do anything to attain their goals, regardless if innocents are caught in the cross fire. 
I hope bolded is an exaggeration because i'm tired of the shallow Saturday morning antagonists we were bombared with in DA2.

No, the templars are obvious villains in Asunder, and the sympathetic one we meet leaves at the end. I have a strong feeling this trend will continue in DA3, and thus my hopes are high.

[The Hierophant]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Why kill Adrian? She's awesome, and the worst thing she did was kill someone who was begging for death. And Fiona's an excellent leader. Even Lambert fits his role well, for an organization so evil.

Nope there's nothing awesome about Adrian.  So far all of the mentioned are extremists, would do anything to attain their goals, regardless if innocents are caught in the cross fire. 
I hope bolded is an exaggeration because i'm tired of the shallow Saturday morning antagonists we were bombared with in DA2.

No, the templars are obvious villains in Asunder, and the sympathetic one we meet leaves at the end. I have a strong feeling this trend will continue in DA3, and thus my hopes are high.

After the Witcher 2's and Skyrim's writers uped the ante on creating opposing factions with just as many faults as their rival, i doubt it. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 10 août 2012 - 05:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Oh, I'm sure there'll be a dichotomy between the mages and Chantry that players can choose to side between, but now that the templars have left the Chantry, I believe they're being set up to be Cerberusesque villains. Bioware can't afford to take that many risks with DA3, really.

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, I'm sure there'll be a dichotomy between the mages and Chantry that players can choose to side between, but now that the templars have left the Chantry, I believe they're being set up to be Cerberusesque villains. Bioware can't afford to take that many risks with DA3, really.

I think it would be interesting to see the factions split up into three or four.

- united mages who want freedom
- divided Templars
             * Justinia loyalists who are mage-friendly
             * Jerks who hate mages or just need to keep a steady job
             * Rogue templars who are more interested in finding lyrium than supporting one side or the other

Personally, I like this idea - as it shows that the Chantry isn't made up of either 100% villains or 100% good guys, but a little of both. Let the sick psychopaths who like torture and killing be the bad guys, and the well-meaning with historically faulty leadership have a second chance to prove themselves.

Being able to side with the mages and partner with Justinia would be fun, especially if there was a way to broker a deal with the dwarves to get lyrium, and thus more templars, to help. Kind of like the resource system in ME.

[Xilizhra]

Justinia was never really mage-friendly, just willing to make token and not very useful accommodations to get them to shut up.

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

Justinia was never really mage-friendly, just willing to make token and not very useful accommodations to get them to shut up.

I have to disagree completely. She put herself in a significant amount of danger in order to see that some very necessary changes were made to the Circle system in order to make it humane and consistent with Chantry teaching on harming without necessity. Things got crazy just as the ball was rolling, but that doesn't mean her heart was in the wrong place, or that it's too late for her to see those changes completed.

It may not have been a radical enough plan for your taste, but you betray a sense of unfair Chantry bias by saying she just wanted to satisfy the mages and shut them up. Aside from Wynne, who she admitted into her presence willingly, she probably didn't have to worry her head one bit what any mage thought. She could have just kept giving litanies, eating cheese, wearing big hats, and becoming the most beloved Divine in history instead of one of its most hated.

[Xilizhra]

Not only do I believe that it is too late for those changes to be implemented, but I believe it was too late long before she was even born. It's not necessarily her fault; she may well have just been born into circumstances that were impossible to resolve peacefully. She managed to alienate both the mages and the templars; if she'd been a bit more radical, been willing to see the mages as genuine equals, she might have just alienated the templars and then gotten the mages on the Chantry's side. Instead, with that going on and the Orlesian civil war besides, she now has basically no reliable allies whatsoever. Bad for her, but I don't think I'll miss the Chantry having power.

[The Hierophant]

I think that turning the templars into an Cerebus expy is repetitive and unoriginal. Bioware's best bet would be to show the good, the bad, and the ugly for both factions without being influenced by an lyrium idol, or indoctrinated. The series needs more villains like Loghain who despite their methods/rationale, you can empathize.

[Xilizhra]

The Hierophant wrote...

I think that turning the templars into an Cerebus expy is repetitive and unoriginal. Bioware's best bet would be to show the good, the bad, and the ugly for both factions without being influenced by an lyrium idol, or indoctrinated. The series needs more villains like Loghain who despite their methods/rationale, you can empathize.

Oh, I'm sure the templars will have those. People like Cullen, perhaps, though Cullen himself may jump ship.

[The Hierophant]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

I think that turning the templars into an Cerebus expy is repetitive and unoriginal. Bioware's best bet would be to show the good, the bad, and the ugly for both factions without being influenced by an lyrium idol, or indoctrinated. The series needs more villains like Loghain who despite their methods/rationale, you can empathize.

Oh, I'm sure the templars will have those. People like Cullen, perhaps, though Cullen himself may jump ship.

I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed with the Chantry, but i would laugh if Greagoir is with the rogue templars.

[Xilizhra]

He was one of the knight-commanders who signed off on Lambert's departure. Though I'd personally consider the templars with the Chantry to be "rogue," as the Order as a whole departed.

[LobselVith8]

The Hierophant wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aldenon the Great wanted to create a kingdom of equals. He was opposed to a tyrannical system that he saw as slavery.

Unless the writers change the dark fantasy of DA into unicorns, sunshine, and rainbows, i don't see Aldenon's pipe dream coming true. So far the templars were the only authority mages feared or listened to before the war. If the mages defeat the templars, there would be no reason for them to adhere to the laws of  the mundanes, as there is no one around to oppose them. Unlike the other fantasy stories where the mages were rare, not prone to possession, and common sense/compromise is the norm, i just don't see things going well for Thedas if the templar order is destroyed.

Considering the societies that have free mages living alongside non-mages, without templars ruling over them, I don't share your pessimism.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

"But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. And if they choose to be Magisters, let us hope Fereldens are flame proof."

Aldenon the Great wanted to create a kingdom of equals. He was opposed to a tyrannical system that he saw as slavery.

I wonder how can there be equality when some men can shape reality at will and others can not.

[Rayndorn]

 Look at the Dalish, guys. IMO, they have the right idea of it. The keeper and his/her first are the only mages in the respective clan. They are cautious using their magic, and don't even do it in public. We haven't heard of any cases where one of the dalish became an abomination. Of course, all the kingdoms of thedas are much larger than the dalish clans, but they could still learn from the elven system. Each senior mage should have an apprentice and ONLY that apprentice (I assume in the circles one mage teaches multiple students) so they can focus on teaching THAT child. It might also create a sort of bond, where the apprentice trusts their master and follows their example. And the templars? Well, they should serve more as guardians then jailors. 

Earlier on, I suggested that the circle would be much more successful as a school rather than a life imprisonment.

Sorry if my point is unclear...  I'm rather tired 

[MisterJB]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Of course, it's a much better idea to just let people who can turn others into charcoal with a tought and are prone to attract demons roam free. I'm sure no one will get hurt.

And even if they do, who cares about mundanes? Mages, now those are the people who matter.

Innocent until proven guilty.

A mage who abuses his power should be punished. A mage who does not should be free.

It's really that simple.

I'm sure that the dead and its families will revel in the morality of our society.
Wait, they won't actually care about it. They would much rather we hd taken the necessary steps to keep them safe from magic.

[GavrielKay]

Hazasaurus98 wrote...
 Look at the Dalish, guys. IMO, they have the right idea of it. The keeper and his/her first are the only mages in the respective clan.

That's not true.  In DA:O the woman in charge of the halla was also a mage.  I think if you end up fighting them there are several.  I think there was at least one other mage in Marethari's clan as well.  Each clan is goverened by a mage who has an apprentice, but there can be other mages in the clan as well.

[MisterJB]

GavrielKay wrote...
This same argument can be used to justify the Tevinter mages enslaving mundanes and locking them down.  After all, mundanes possess a natural advantage of greater numbers.  Those numbers mean that mudanes can overrun mages and kill even the most powerful.  Because mundanes lack magic, they will rely on stealth and cunning - sneaking up on unsuspecting mages and killing them in their sleep.  We MUST control the mundanes or they will use their natural advantage of numbers to destroy the society the mages have built.  See, just look at the rest of Thedas where the munanes are using their numbers to imprison the mages and deny their basic rights.

Once fear is all you need to justify your actions, a lot of horrible things can be done.

The mages can reproduce, can they not? Mundanes have no "natural advantage" the mages can not possess. On the other hand, mundanes can't learn magic.

But yes, mundanes and mages are two factions of different people trying to own the same portion of land. That they fight each other is inevitable. You can claim mundanes are opressing mages now but only because mages spent many generations opressing mundanes and still do in Tevinter. At least we keep them in a luxurious tower where they are clothed and fed and protected. The Magisters do not show the same courtesy to the mundanes of Tevinter.

Fear is what keeps people alive.

Even if the Chantry was "morally right" to protect the masses from the few - it would come with a huge responsibility.  Like modern quarantine it should be used only when there is no alternative.  And alternatives should be constantly sought and tested.  We don't quarantine folks and then clap our hands and declare the problem solved.  We search for a cure.  We endlessly test the subjects to see if they are still contagious.

Morality is subjective.
You can't cure magic any more than you can cure humanity's faults. You also can't erradicate demons.

Whether or not the circle system had been the right choice for everyone at the time it was implemented, it became morally wrong as soon as the Chantry threw up its hands in victory and quit looking for any way that the situation could be improved.

Again morality is subjective.
I find it morally, irresponsible and naive to risk all for the sake of a group of people who are inherently dangerous.

When they kept the Litany of Adralla secret they failed.

Tasers can incapacitate attackers, thus making the average citizen safer. But that does not mean we should abolish the prison system because, in a real attack, there are too many factors to take into account that can prevent the victim from defending itself.
Not to mention the Litany only protects people from mind control. If a mage decides to kill you with any other spell, and there are many to choose from, it's useless.

When they prevented research into blood magic and demons they failed.

They do conduct research into blood magic and demons. The Litany of Adralla proves this.
Just because they don't let the average apprentice experiment with the most dangerous form of magic, that doesn't mean they are not conducting experiments themselves in a controlled environment.

Every time they suppressed research into how mages could safely re-integrate into society they failed to continue to justify their own drastic solution.

 
Mages can not be safely re-integrated into society. They are too dangerous and unpredictable.

And finally when they didn't notice that the Templar arm had become wholeheartedly anti-mage to the point where they would rather break  the Nevarran Accord than consider granting the mages more freedom, they failed massively and ended up letting the situation slide into war.

Extremist mages sabotaged the negotiations with the Chantry to obtain more freedom. They then declared themselves absolutely free for all time. If the mages are not willing to work with the templars, how can we expect the templars to be willing to work with them? They obviously can't let hundreds of nuclear reactors roam free.

Never.  We should be willing to die for the right causes.  To do otherwise is to allow massive injustice.  That is like saying the US should have stayed out of WWII and just let Hitler slaughter all the Jews he wanted to.  Ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is to think the american government entered the war because they cared, in the sligthest, what was happening to the jews. Had the japanese never attacked and Hitler restricted himself to Europe, the US wouldn't have done a thing.
Right and wrong are subjective. Idealism is a wondrous thing but it shouldn't blind you to reality. If mages existed in our world, we would contain them. To do anything else would be irresponsible.

Modifié par MisterJB, 10 août 2012 - 09:41 .

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
No, the templars are obvious villains in Asunder, and the sympathetic one we meet leaves at the end. I have a strong feeling this trend will continue in DA3, and thus my hopes are high.

The whole point of Asunder is to show how both sides have extremists who are unwilling to talk.

Lambert was a morally grey character who had seen the worst mages have to offer and had several good points that Evangeline refused to take into account because her lover was a mage.

Xilizhra wrote...

Why kill Adrian? She's awesome, and the
worst thing she did was kill someone who was begging for death. And
Fiona's an excellent leader. Even Lambert fits his role well, for an
organization so evil.

People like Adrian and Fiona who
are prejudiced and unwilling to even look at the situation from a
different perspective start wars. They did, in fact, start one.

If you must praise any mage, praise Wynne or Orsino who understood why
mages are feared and why acting as if they do not have a responsability
to their fellow men will not endear mundanes to their cause.

Modifié par MisterJB, 10 août 2012 - 09:35 .

[Rayndorn]

GavrielKay wrote...

Hazasaurus98 wrote...
 Look at the Dalish, guys. IMO, they have the right idea of it. The keeper and his/her first are the only mages in the respective clan.

That's not true.  In DA:O the woman in charge of the halla was also a mage.  I think if you end up fighting them there are several.  I think there was at least one other mage in Marethari's clan as well.  Each clan is goverened by a mage who has an apprentice, but there can be other mages in the clan as well.

Really? That's very intresting. According to the wiki, if a child is born with magic, they're raised in their clan, but if there is already a first or multiple children capable of assuming the role, than they are "given" (not sure if that's an appropriate word, but oh well) to another clan in the Dalish clan gathering every few years. Maybe it was just game mechanics. But hey, perhaps you NEED magic to fully understand the halla.

[Xilizhra]

The whole point of Asunder is to show how both sides have extremists who are unwilling to talk.

Lambert was a morally grey character who had seen the worst mages have to offer and had several good points that Evangeline refused to take into account because her lover was a mage.

Except that the mage "extremists" all came out well and more or less sympathetically, whereas the templars... didn't. There are also several passages talking about just how morally bankrupt the Templar Order has become.

People like Adrian and Fiona who
are prejudiced and unwilling to even look at the situation from a
different perspective start wars. They did, in fact, start one.

The templars were the ones who started the war when they betrayed the Divine.